BATON ROUGE FIERCENESS

An American Medal of Freedom winner, western author Louis L'Amour, said that Americans love stories with awesome heroes and victorious endings (my paraphrasing.)
I happen to agree with Louis L'Amour. As a red-blooded American, I am perplexed at the way this movie unfolds.
It's as if the movie is trying to prove that Stanley is a waste of masculinity, while using the most attractive actor and acting to portray him. Or something like that....?
The movie also seems to be trying to put the audience on the side of Blanche. But I can only see where she went wrong, and is very much to blame. Everything Stanley does is nothing in comparison to her own misdemeanor. And I have a hard time reconciling to the ending. I mean-- what the--? This movie leaves too many gaps for the audience to fill in. When a story is told, the audience shouldn't have to invent it's ending. We all know there's more to this story, because like Mitch said to Blanche about Stanley and Stella "There's nothing to be scared of-- they're crazy about each other."
That's why when the credits roll, there's a definite sense of-- "Hey, wait. What happened?"
Marlon Brando's portrayal of Stanley has from the first been something I will always remember and a part of something I hope to see in the man I marry someday.
I can't help but give this four stars, because his acting outweighs the disappointment.
Thank you Archives.org for having this movie available.

t